[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081218124803.GA31763@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:48:03 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ring_bufer: fix BUF_PAGE_SIZE
* Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> impact: make BUF_PAGE_SIZE changeable.
>
> Except allocating/freeing page and the code using PAGE_MASK,
> all code expect buffer_page's length is BUF_PAGE_SIZE.
>
> This patch make this behavior more concordant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> index 668bbb5..0cf6caf 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c
> @@ -158,6 +158,10 @@ struct buffer_page {
> void *page; /* Actual data page */
> };
>
> +#define BUF_PAGE_ORDER 0
> +#define BUF_PAGE_SIZE (PAGE_SIZE << BUF_PAGE_ORDER)
> +#define BUF_PAGE_MASK (~(BUF_PAGE_SIZE - 1))
> +
> /*
> * Also stolen from mm/slob.c. Thanks to Mathieu Desnoyers for pointing
> * this issue out.
> @@ -165,7 +169,7 @@ struct buffer_page {
> static inline void free_buffer_page(struct buffer_page *bpage)
> {
> if (bpage->page)
> - free_page((unsigned long)bpage->page);
> + free_pages((unsigned long)bpage->page, BUF_PAGE_ORDER);
hm, why? Non-order-0 allocations are pretty evil - why would we ever want
to do them?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists